Skyscript Astrology Forum

This quibbling about what the meaning of "founding" is reminds me of Bill Clinton when he once infamously said "depends upon what the meaning of is, is". If we look at Merriam-Webster's dictionary we have:

foun?da?tion
foun?d?SH(?)n/
noun
1. the lowest load-bearing part of a building, typically below ground level.
synonyms: footing, foot, base, substructure, infrastructure, underpinning...
2. an underlying basis or principle for something.
"this idea is the foundation of all modern economics"
synonyms: basis, starting point, base, point of departure, beginning, premise...

Since we aren't talking about buildings, we can presume that definition 2 is what Schmidt is using.

It is part of human nature to bring understanding into one's own sphere of experience. The Greek culture (and language) undoubtedly knew about the previous innovations by the Babylonians in such areas as mathematics and astronomy and based upon their own understanding, presumably applied their own principles as the basis for their own understanding, not just in astrology, but in many other areas.

I don't want to put words in Schmidt's mouth, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that what he means by "founding" is that Eudoxus used some of the underlying principles found in Greek philosophy to lay the groundwork for his own astro-logic, probably borrowing from both Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, but with it's own comprehensive logic.

zoidsoft wrote: I don't want to put words in Schmidt's mouth, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that what he means by "founding" is that Eudoxus used some of the underlying principles found in Greek philosophy to lay the groundwork for his own astro-logic, probably borrowing from both Egyptian and Babylonian ideas, but with it's own comprehensive logic.

My definition of founder (rather than foundation) is someone show sets up an organisation - what I'm not sure is how does that apply to a corpus of work like astrology. Do we mean something more like "someone who synthesises" or more "someone who invents".

To take the example Chris Brennan made on this point on Facebook, would you see Euclid as the founder of geometry?

I would prefer something specific and measurable - a claim that Eudoxus was the first to synthesise the 12 part Babylonian zodiac with Greek philosophy would be an interesting thing all by itself and definitely worthy of consideration. But Greek astrology is very broad - we typically distinguish it by way of an aspect doctrine, the lots (at least Fortune and Spirit), the use of the ascendant, the use of the houses and then zodiacal features as well. Is the claim that Eudoxus founded all these things too? Did they exist before him in some other cultures? If so, what did he bring that was new or imagined differently in the sense of applying Greek philosophy? Or should we see founded as made available or gathered together in one place?

The term, for me, raises more questions than it answers. Perhaps that's the whole point of course. It may seem like squabbling to you, but to me, it's important to actually understand, in specifics, what Schmidt's claim is that he has discovered.

Paul wrote:To take the example Chris Brennan made on this point on Facebook, would you see Euclid as the founder of geometry?

To extend this logic further you're implying that Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of "astrology". Do you see the problem with that? It's not what Schmidt said. The title on his web page right now says:

Eudoxus of Knidos:
Founder of Greek Astrology

Nice try...

zoidsoft wrote:

Paul wrote:To take the example Chris Brennan made on this point on Facebook, would you see Euclid as the founder of geometry?

To extend this logic further you're implying that Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of "astrology". Do you see the problem with that? It's not what Schmidt said. The title on his web page right now says:

Eudoxus of Knidos:
Founder of Greek Astrology

Nice try...

Curtis

It's actually just a simpler question, I'm not trying to "trick" anyone here, nor have I implied anywhere that Schmdit is saying that Eudoxus was the founder of astrology. But Schmidt is saying that Eudoxus is the founder of X, and I'm replacing X with something else, in this case geometry.

But if it makes you feel more comfortable, let me ask a different way:
In a like manner, would you consider Euclid the founder of Greek Geometry?

For example people will sometimes refer to Euclid as the father of geometry (or Greek geometry if you prefer it), but would we say that Euclid was the founder of (Greek) geometry? If not, is there a distinction here to Eudoxus and astrology that we could parallel?

Of course if I wanted to be exacting I could say I am being more lenient to Schmidt than not - a better way of wording it could have been to ask if someone was the founder of Greek mathematics as a whole. Schmidt isn't saying some sub-branch of Greek astrology like aspect doctrine, or the use of the zodiac etc. but being broad and inclusive as Greek astrology as a whole. I could do likewise and refer to the broader apparatus in which geometry works in the same manner and say mathematics. But my point isn't to trip up you or Schmidt - my 'nice try's are a lot nicer than you may give me credit and the only 'try' I'm attempting is to understand what Schmidt (or others who follow him) mean by the term. Let's keep giving one another the benefit of the doubt.

There were a number of comments on my FB page by Chris Brennan that serve to muddy the picture rather than elucidate that would fool the less intelligent. All I can say is that you're playing without a full deck of cards. You'll just have to wait for Schmidt's argument to see what he says "Greek astrology" consists of.

Zoidsoft wrote:

All I can say is that you're playing without a full deck of cards. You'll just have to wait for Schmidt's argument to see what he says "Greek astrology" consists of.

Well something we can all agree on! Curtis have you any idea when Robert Schmidt intends to publish his research?

I am on the mailing list given in the link. Its just after the major disappointment of the failure to produce the TARES series of new translations so long promised by Project Hindsight its made me quite sceptical.

Thanks

Mark

I was skeptical too for a long time that Bob would publish, but he committed himself with this announcement. I don't think it's possible now for him to back out of it. That would be like suicide. So relax, it's coming.

The sensible thing would be to wait for the full article to come out, but in the meantime, this is an interesting discussion!

Assuming that people here are basically clear on Babylonian astrology, including its invention of signs and genethliacal component, how would anyone here define Greek astrology?

What innovations would make astrology essentially Greek or Hellenistic? As opposed to Mesopotamian?

I gather from FB Medievalis Astrologiae Collegium that Schmidt's lecture on this is released

Mjacob wrote:I gather from FB Medievalis Astrologiae Collegium that Schmidt's lecture on this is released

Only the very small part about the house system division which doesn't say anything about Eudoxus. There's a larger series of workshops that Schmidt has already done that hasn't been published yet.

waybread wrote:The sensible thing would be to wait for the full article to come out, but in the meantime, this is an interesting discussion!

Assuming that people here are basically clear on Babylonian astrology, including its invention of signs and genethliacal component, how would anyone here define Greek astrology?

What innovations would make astrology essentially Greek or Hellenistic? As opposed to Mesopotamian?

Identifying and Matching with Gods, mythology and philosophy.

Mesopotamian astrology invented the match-up of heavenly bodies with their gods, mythology, and theology. I don't think they had a secular philosophy. Very anciently, the Greek religion seemed to have Indo-European roots, which gave them a few parallels with ancient Indian religion. The earliest Greeks didn't have a well-developed mythology of their own, but they borrowed a lot of the divine personalities and myths from the Mesopotamians, probably by way of the Minoans. This is pretty well known by classical scholars.

Venus (Aphrodite)=Ishtar, Inanna
Mars (Ares)=Nergal
Jupiter (Zeus)=Marduk

and so on with other close parallels.

What the Babylonians didn't have was spherical geometry, the ascendant point, houses, or a Platonic concept of perfect spheres.